T-Mac: #Komenfail
Articleman as Particleman: The Science of Newt/RINOs
Newt Sees Shadow, Crawls Back Into Hole: Six More Weeks of Primaries On Way
|
T-Mac: #Komenfail Articleman as Particleman: The Science of Newt/RINOs Newt Sees Shadow, Crawls Back Into Hole: Six More Weeks of Primaries On Way |
Read |
It's probably a fool's errand to make attempts at parsing the paranoid, hysterical rhetoric that's been flying around in the healthcare debate, but that's never stopped me before. So, I'm watching the fun on C-SPAN this afternoon. Listening to some of the "against" calls, I noticed something that I probably should have noticed before, which is this: The bizarre dichotomy of professing your undying love for the Constitution, while breathlessly spewing venom at the fundamental evil of the government.
Folks, I have to tell you that I love you very much for your dogged support of the Constitution. I'm with you. I believe that it's been a net positive for humanity despite its flaws, which in many cases have been adjusted over the years in a manner that, I would contend, has been largely for the better. Through our history, we've righted some serious wrongs by broadening and deepening our commitment to the ideas that are embedded in that oft referred to document. And we may yet have some way to go in that respect.
However, it should be noted that the one thing the Constitution does, first and foremost, is establish a government. I must say that the people who cling tenaciously to the Constitution while hurling invective at the very institution that the document creates have perhaps missed the point.
Don't get me wrong. It's perfectly valid to criticize that institution and its operations. Not only is it valid, but it's necessary for the health of the system in my opinion. However, that's a debate that acknowledges the question of whether or not to have a government at all as settled. We can disagree with specific things that the government does, but that's different than attacking the very notion of government itself.
Now, you could be a bona fide anti-statist. Hey, that's fine. You're entitled to that point of view. However, you can't be an anti-statist and claim allegiance to the Constitution at the same time. It's fundamentally nonsenscial. The Constitution establishes a state government. If you really believe that the state is fundamentally evil, then the Constitution is the bane of your existence.
And this goes for people who make silly claims like it's un-Constitutional to pass a healthcare reform bill. If you're referring to the Constitution that I know and love, then you know that Article I gets the party started by establishing a legislative body and describing how that body will be selected and proceed. Well, that body is using the power vested in it by Article I to pass law. Again, you could be somebody who fundamentally disagrees with this scenario or the power of legislators to legislate, but their doing so is anything but un-Constitutional.
And lest we think that the people who make this argument are just random callers into C-SPAN, I listened to a Republican member of the House again invoke the notion that a healthcare reform bill is un-Constitutional as I typed that last paragraph.
In closing, I would go one further and put it that fundamental hatred of the government is un-American. America is nothing if not a state. Again, you're perfectly entitled to hold the idea of state in question, but debating how that state should function and whether or not there should even be a state are different things. I'm fine with having both debates, but it's either terribly erroneous or perhaps even disingenuous to confuse the two. And that confusion seems to underline a sense of alienation from government rather than ownership of it.
Huffington Post - A. Terkel/R. Grim begins report with:
WASHINGTON -- At a private three-day retreat in California last weekend, conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch and about 250 to 300 other individuals pledged approximately $100 million to defeat President Obama in the 2012 elections.
and report includes:
The source told The Huffington Post that they lamented the direction the conference has taken over the years. They said it used to be about "conservative strategy" and building a movement, but now it was mostly an "alpha male" spectacle focused on fundraising to beat Obama.
This is downright frightening.
If I could offer advice to a young rebel, it would be to rummage the past for a body of thought that helps you understand and address the shortcomings you see. Give yourself a label.
Effective rebellion isn’t just expressing your personal feelings. It means replacing one set of authorities and institutions with a better set of authorities and institutions. Authorities and institutions don’t repress the passions of the heart, the way some young people now suppose. They give them focus and a means to turn passion into change.
As if the socio-political change is a matter of removing one set and plugging in the other set.
In the end, all Brooks once wants to do is point to the kids of today and say "aren't they being silly."
What Brooks wants to avoid is the messiness that comes from delving into the change where the outcome is not known before one set out ahead of time. It wraps this up by saying those who see it in a different way are merely motivated by personal feelings, which is about as asinine as it gets.
As they say, you read, you decide. Preview:
They'll still turn down Planned Parenthood again next time because of the supposed pass-through grant. Unless of course, Nancy Brinker was lying last night. So which is it?
“This represents nothing new. We have known and have reported that they are continuing five grants through 2012. This is a reference to that. The second clause about eligibility is certainly true. Any group can apply for anything. It does not mean they are going to get anything,” Ruse told LifeNews.
Geez, is the 'surrender' a trojan horse? Or in fact, not even a surrender, since ongoing current funding was not being stopped. According to this, it's all about the future funding processes, which is still not committed. Hmmm.
Once again, as ever, this bill (as many legislative actions) provides only the facade that our Nation's leaders are legislating what the country needs and holding themselves to the same standards as their constituents.
In truth, the proposed legislation does not provide the same oversight and consequences for Congressional insider trading malfeasance, as the rest of our nation's citizens are subject to under current insider trading laws.
We need to stand up and speak out that this is not good enough! Please, blog - send emails - call - communicate the facts to the WH, media and your own local governmental body, asking them to pass a resolution to be forwarded to your state's congressional members as well as the WH. Don't attack either party as all are culpable. A bi-partisan coalition none should support.
Well it took longer than I thought, but just a day longer. KOMEN has reversed course.
We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.
Nancy Komen Brinker goes on to deny what happened and continues to say they were misunderstood, but the backlash has been enormous, and they have reversed course and apologize.
The thing is, I think this will continue to hurt them, as they've been found out, they support policies that that hurt women.
Yep, sorry Nancy, your days in the spotlight are probably over.
I will update this with some video soon.
You sound like one of those close-minded Western thinkers who believe in the Law of Excluded Middle. Something's either true or it's not true. Well, sometimes something is both true and not true. Light is both a wave and not a wave. It's both a particle and not a particle. I can hate the idea of government while loving the idea of government. It's really not a hard concept. If you have to ask me how this is possible, then you have not yet opened your mind to Zen.
This should help: what is the sound of one Republican in the forest if no one is there?
Suspend logic for just a second and understand that these people of whom you speak support the state when their people are running it. It's only un-Constitutional to make laws when their opponents are running things. I call it "The Toddler Principle."
I guess that's really my point. The debate is fundamentally disingenuous, just as the debate about the "free market" is. These aren't really questions of state or no and regulation or no, but that frame is decidedly beneficial to one side of the argument.
It shouldn't be hard to understand that the constitution does NOT give government the right to take over private businesses at will, or that the constitution does NOT give the federal government the right to run the healthcare industry in America.
The constitution was written to LIMIT government, as the Founding Fathers of America knew that only by limiting government could they allow the INDIVIDUAL freedom they intended each American to enjoy.
The Constitution gives the government the power to tax and regulate business and to operate administrative entities. That's all that's required. Your argument is precisely the one that doesn't understand what the Constitution is and does.